Sn8ke_iis

55? Damn. A typical AAA big budget game from Rockstar could have 1000+ people working on it. If that is the case, people really need to recalibrate their expectations. I'm surprised the modules are as good as they are with such small teams.

I own all the warbirds except the new Russian one and the FW preorder. I own most of the WWII campaigns as well. Love em. The Spitfire Normandy campaigns are awesome.

OK, so it's not just me, that makes me feel better. Funny thing about people, I seriously doubt anyone would go up to Wags at the upcoming convention and say the things that I've read. But when they can hide behind anonymity and not face any social consequences or encourage each other with Karma points people seem to lose their minds. Not a good reflection of character.

I would think 15,000 is actually a little low for a popular module. Just some back of the envelope math in my head, ED would have to be moving more units than that even as an Indy game company. We are talking about over a 100 people on salary right?

Wasn't the presale supposed to start today? Or did they push it back?

Just some speculation here, but a lot of the outrage I'm seeing on Hoggit or on these forums is really from a very small group of hardcore emotionally invested people. Maybe too much "gamer" influence? Age? I also don't know if they have any safeguards against sock puppet accounts like mac address. I see a lot of commonalities in some of the long winded manifestos and rants uploaded under different user names. I think people are upvoting their own manifestos and downvote mobbing people who disagree with them to try and amplify the weight of their opinion. These forums can be wonderful sources of information, but a lot of the younger guys don't remember flight simulation essentially dying in the 90's as a viable genre for major developers. They want a game with all the quality of life features as an Assassin's Creed or GTA on an Indy developer budget. Several people were even advocating review bombs on Steam. I know I'm not the only guy around here who likes to make models. ED's approach to module development makes perfect sense to guys who buy expensive aftermarket resin detail sets to correct inaccuracies on their models or buy a specific paint to match Luftwaffe colors.

Assuming you are using TrackIR, as it stands now, a 100+ Hz monitor is kind of a waste unless you are doing other things with it or playing FPS games. You would need a beast of a system and appropriate settings to keep the 120Hz required for the image to be smooth. 60Hz is a lot more feasible. The Samsung QLED IPS panel in my sig is great but it's little pricy for a dedicated monitor. I use mine all the time to watch movies, play other games, Netflix, etc. I also own an Asus PG279Q 166Hz monitor. Great for FPS, but I play DCS on the big screen, much more immersive. If you plan to go the TV route, check out rtings.com for a proper gaming TV. Most recent models have some kind of game or PC mode that bypasses all the filters and processing for minimal lag.

Just off the top of my head, Vietnam era pilots said the early Russian sams were like telephone poles taking off with a very big visual signature. More recent sams with different rocket motors, I'm not sure what would be realistic.

Maybe we should start listing all the aviation accidents where the pilots didn't see each other. You can go on Youtube right now and find all kinds of case studies and accident investigations. Those planes were usually painted bright glossy colors too.

OK show me that program running in C++ without any other syntax or libraries. What is your background in professional software development, math, or physics.?

Yep

That is not functioning C++ code and would not compile as a functioning program. What is your background in Software development, Math, or Physics? You are obviously intelligent and articulate. But this isn't a legal debate in law school. We play a game on a computer. There are certain technical limitations we are dealing with here. I think you are out of your depth.

Please post an example of your C++ code where you can input mathematical notation directly without calling libraries or using some other syntax. What is your background in Math, Physics, or software development?

You keep avoiding my questions and can't explain the logic or technical rationale for your answers. Why is that?

And if you input those numbers directly the compiler would kick it back. So you are an expert in 3D graphics engines? How many have you developed? What IDE do you use?

Cool, I didn't know you could just directly input mathematical notation into C++ and a functioning program comes out. What is your software development experience exactly?

I would wait till November for sales regardless. If the new Ryzen and benchmarks aren't out by then, you'll get a better price on an Intel CPU. And your GPU is definitely bottlenecked. I threw a Titan Xp and a 1070 into my 9900k system out of curiosity. They both ran faster than in my 7700k system. The DCS engine likes fast CPUs. I think it's also safe to also assume after a Vulkan build is released faster CPUs will perform better given an equal amount of cores.

How do you know this scale transform already exists in the code if you can't reverse engineer it? You also conveniently left out the part of the statement about translating it into functioning computer code. If you can code a better alternative and market it, I'll happily buy it. If it was easy to design a good functioning flight simulator and sell it for a profit, more companies and people would. Maybe you guys should take a break from DCS and play another game for a while. Arguing with random people on the internet over something you have no control over is no way to live. I like a good counterfactual historical argument as much as the next aviation nerd but... You guys have a good night. I hope you can find some meaningful purpose in your lives. I'm going to make some dinner and watch the 4th season of Better Call Saul.

I think some of you guys really need to consider a new hobby because this one ain't working. Generally speaking, people play a hobby to relax, unwind, relieve stress, etc. I want my processor to run at 6.0 GHz without liquid nitrogen. I don't go and complain about it on Intel's forums because that would be a waste of time. The laws of thermodynamics and the technical limitations of the processor prevent that. Do I think spotting should be better? Sure. Do I want it to work across all the permutations of displays, resolutions, VR goggles, graphic settings? Sure. Do I think it would improve game play and make it more fun? Especially as an option? Sure. If ED developers could easily change this why wouldn't they? If it was feasible they would have done it already. What I see lacking in all these complaint threads is any kind of specific solution from someone with software engineering experience. Citing all the data and studies in the world doesn't matter if you don't possess the math and physics background and can translate the data into functioning computer code that works for all DCS fans. If it's such an easy fix, maybe you guys should code a mod or something and donate it to the community. I'm sure it would be appreciated. It's nice to see someone bring up the issue of camouflage which seems to be ignored in these "debates". Talk to any other vet or someone with military experience, or even a hunter. Camo works. The USAF and USN put a lot of money and research into choosing these colors and flat paints that don't reflect sunlight. Compare cold war aircraft paint jobs with more recent ones. Anyone who has made a model knows the difference a glossy coat of paint can make on visibility. As one of the posters already mentioned, IRL these aircraft are not easy to see. BG Ritchie and Randy Cunningham both said a MiG-21 is a dot at 2 miles. If they aren't SMEs, I don't know who is. There's an episode of Dogfights where an F-4 pilot and RIO talk about a MiG that flew right through their formation and the pilot did not see it. I was skeptical, but then they played the actual radio recordings. Weather over Vietnam tended to negatively affect visibility due to mist, fog, clouds, etc. I realize there are toxic players in any online PC community with open forums but all the people freaking out should really consider a new hobby, maybe spend some time with their family. I like to hunt, shoot, fish, make models. I think I spend more time building and tinkering with PCs than actually playing them. Just a suggestion...

And graphics. I've tried them all, DCS is the winner hands down and has the best 4K performance too. Compared to FAA certified sims in years past I'm sure DCS could get certified as well. Not sure what the current requirements are. I think this is all just a matter of when, not if. They already said new AI and ATC is two weeks...I'm curious how difficult it would be for Airfoil Labs to adopt their code to the DCS SDK. If if it ever gets released I'll gift you one and you can tell me what you think. And what's wrong with a little feature creep? We already have a functioning sand box sim. My wish besides AI and ATC would be enhanced pilot avatars and squadron management with the ability to get into the cockpit and/or steal vehicles to get back to friendly lines if you get shot down. But I digress...

LOL at people that think they can control the development path of DCS and tell people not to talk about this and post on another forum. When DCS gets a Cessna 172 I'll gift you the module to support the development. Your opinion isn't market research. I'll buy a dozen copies and gift them to friends so they can learn to fly and get into the game. There's obviously demand for this. Stop trying to take a dooty in the sandbox and go copulate with your wife or something. Jeez... This is not a zero sum game. If you don't understand the importance of growing the player base you are just being obtuse. This isn't taking away resources from your pet module that you want developed, it's not preventing them from finding bugs that really bother you. It increases revenue and the player base which allows the development of new modules and features. I don't see how someone can argue against that and reconcile the logic. Combat aircraft and civilian aircraft don't exist in alternate realities. Hey, but what do I know, I just make my living analyzing companies for investors. Anyone who has played the GA sims and compared them to the most recent versions of DCS can see that DCS is better. That's why people are requesting this. There was no way that 3-5 years ago developers had a crystal ball to see where DCS is at now. Now that they do they can develop for DCS now. I don't think the market for people flying an airliner back and forth is as big as you think it is. Add up all the people flying combat sims and that's a lot of people. Either way I would have to look at sales data that these companies don't release. Where are you getting your market data other than your personal opinion? I tried filtering flight sims by best selling on Steam. No such option, only relevance to your search term. On Amazon the top 2 selling flight sims are combat related. You know what they say about opinions... Edit: Just found the top flight simulator on Steam by player count. It's not DCS, the name rhymes with "Boar Blunder" and is definitely combat related. And it should be obvious now why DCS is making MAC. We need to poach all those players.

+1 for the Cessna T-41 Mescalero. It's all good if it has USAF insignia on the side. I'm not sure I understand the rationale of no civilian aircraft in DCS. Having to deconflict airspace for combat scenarios is very realistic. It's not like all civilian traffic around the world just stops every time there is a dogfight or bombs get dropped. And what about intercepting airliners that have drifted off course :(. But seriously folks, just about every western fighter pilot started their training and got their fundamentals down in a Cessna or something similar. When you get a PPL IRL in the states you just fly between local airports. Now I don't think we need ORBX making Heathrow airport and full fidelity 747's but an Airfoil Labs Cessna? Why not? Think of all the data and time on the forum we would save without people coming on asking questions after trying to fly an F-14 without knowing what the ball thingy in the middle of the dashboard is. :music_whistling: Edit: And and ASK-21 too. It says in the documentation for the YAK that you can use it as a towplane.

Pan around and look over your shoulder in a jet with two engines sitting on the tarmac and or go to an external view. If you compare to real photos, the heat blur low looks closer to reality IMO. Wags mentioned in one of his videos that he thinks heatblur is overdone a bit on high, I agree. I think a few modules have some special heat blur eye candy effects on high though. Mirrors are actually a cockpit display as far as DCS is concerned. You can see the resolution changes dramatically in mirrors from 1024, 512, 256, even in aircraft without any MFDs. With the settings you are pushing you could probably go 1440p if you had the monitor. It's kind of counterintuitive but the DCS engine seems to do higher resolution natively more efficiently than the anti-aliasing upscaling. Running 1440p with 2x MSAA might actually look better, YMMV of course. I wish more users would objectively publish their benchmarks and results with their build details like you. None of the major Youtubers benchmark DCS and there are so many different configurations out there. Too many variables to speculate on.

Have you benchmarked with civilian traffic at medium or heat blur at medium? You really won't notice the difference. Looks like you already got it dialed in pretty well but it definitely takes some of the stress off the CPU. That should allow you to crank up the anisotropic filtering or the water effects, maybe even shadows. Looks much better to my eye. Anisotropic filtering affects the quality of textures at angles, you'll really notice it looking down the runway at takeoff. Usually doesn't use much horsepower either. Good modules to benchmark are the P-51 and the F-86 Sabre. Two well optimized and stable releases along with the A-10. For the F-14 I've been just turning mirrors off until I get away from the airfield or carrier and then turn them back on at altitude. Didn't have to turn down any settings doing that.

The new Virpil T-50CM and updated grips that they just announced for preorder look very promising. I'd like to see Noobifier's review and rating of those. I only have experience with Suncomm, Saitek, and Thrustmaster. Virpil corrected the deficiency in the thumb hat switch and updated the internals as I don't believe it's Warthog compatible anymore. Their throttle is also actually available rather than a render from over a year ago and they seem to understand proper supply and distribution chains and customer service. I've been using Thrustmaster since they first advertised in Computer Gaming World in the early 90's. I had their first B-8 style grip production run, it was actually crap, jittery and all over the place compared to my CH joystick. But the hat switch was a game changer in the dark times before TrackIR and VR. Nice to see them having real competition again.